The tenant's actions, even if consistent with the purpose for which the premises were rented, can still constitute nuisance and material alteration, justifying eviction.

Prakash Tatia, J.-Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-tenant took a premises on rent from respondent-land-lord plaintiff for which a rent deed was executed on 19.02.1978.

2. Adjoining shop to the shop in dispute was in possession of the another tenant of plaintiff who was Jasraj. After the death of Jasraj, his widow Akhi Bai was facing a suit for eviction filed by the plaintiff and that suit was decreed by the trial Court on 110.1987 against which an appeals was preferred by the tenant of that shop, which was dismissed by the High Court on 11.01.1988. The High Court granted one years time to the widow of Jasraj to vacate the premises on her furnishing undertaking for the delivery of possession to the landlord in terms of the order of the trial Court dated 11.01.1988. But during this period of one year, Akhi Bai expired on 14.05.1988 upon which escheated proceedings were started on the application of Tehsildar, Jodhpur and that said adjoining shop No. 2 was taken in possession of the State Government. In the escheated proceedings, ultimately, the respondent-plaintiff could obtain the possession of the shop on 27.02.1991 after end of the escheated litigation.

3. According to the respondent-plaintiff , during this period of 25.05.1988 to 27.02.1991, when the shop No. 2 was in possession of the State Government and was sealed, the defendant and his son created a ventilator in the wall between the shop in dispute and adjoining shop No. 2 and he put an iron grill for ventilation. The defendant-appellant also installed a furnace (Bhatti) and started preparation of "Namkin" by burning fire-wood in the shop in Bhati. It caused huge smoke and that smoke had only way to pass and that was through ventilator into the adjoining shop No. 2. That caused totally blackening of shop No. 2 making it totally inhabitable and it made the shop for no use of any business. Therefore, according to the plaintiff-landlord, by this act, the defendant who took the shop in question only for trade changed the user and started manufacturing "Namkin" and that change entitles the plaintiff to seek decree of eviction under Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1950") and materially altered the premises without the permission of the plaintiff-landlord and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of eviction on this ground under Sub-clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950 and further the defendant-tenant created nuisance and, therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for decree of eviction of the tenant under Sub-clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act of 1950.

4. In addition to above, according to the plaintiff-respondent, the defendant-appellant permitted his son to use the shop in question for illegal trade for which a raid was conducted by the police and illicit liquor was recovered from the premises and the appellant-defendant-tenants son Om Prakash was arrested and a case No. 88/90 under the Excise Act was registered against the appellant-tenants son Om Prakash and challan was also filed. Therefore, according to the plaintiff , the defendant-appellant-tenant incurred disqualification to remain in possession of the rented premises because of permitting illegal trade in the shop in dispute.

5. The defendant submitted his written statement and denied all the allegations and took a specific plea that the defendant-appellant took the premises on rent for running a hotel and from the day when he took the premises on rent, he is using the premises for the business of hotel. He further submitted that the furnace (Bhatti) was constructed immediately after taking on rent the premises and he is doing the hotel business in suit premises from beginning. The defendant further submitted that he did not create any hole in the wall as alleged by the plaintiff . For the allegation of illegal trade in t